Controversial Topic: Censorship and Freedom of Speech

In a sense which differentiates this topic from many other controversial topics, advocacy for free speech knows no specific political affiliation. This core principle of America’s founding-that the government shall make no law restricting or prohibiting free speech-is one shared by most Americans. And yet, there is an ongoing push and pull over how to interpret, protect, or limit free speech. The free speech debate topic in the U.S. concerns:

• The unfettered exercise of First Amendment rights;
• Government efforts to place what are posited as approach limitations on such exercise; and
• Efforts by political groups, citizen groups and activists to confront and silence speech that it deems offensive.

The goal of this discussion is to examine the various perspectives shaping the public discussion over Censorship and Freedom of Speech, and to provide you with a look at some of the figures past and present who have influenced this discussion. The figures selected may not always be household names, but are instead selected to provide a nuanced look at the public discourse on this subject, and in some cases, even to provide you with a list of individuals to contact as part of your research.

A Brief History of The Issue

On December 15th, 1791, the first 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights were ratified as part of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This amendment has had a far-reaching impact on the formation of public life in America, from our practice of religion and our expression of art to our political affiliation, modes of protest, and our expectations of a free and fair press. The freedoms and protections implicated by the First Amendment are held as fundamental principles of the free and democratic society intended by the U.S. Constitution. First Amendment protections inform an array of rights that have been challenged and upheld over the course of more than two centuries.

Though the First Amendment itself is held as fundamental, the reach of its protections has been frequently challenged, most notably by way of:

• Judicial precedent;
• State-sponsored censorship; and more recently,
• Public pressure campaigns aimed toward “cancellation” of figures perceived to be guilty of offensive speech.

These challenges represent the various ways that both those in positions of authority and portions of the public can advocate for limitations on the protections accorded in the First Amendment. In some cases, these limitations are not only advocated for, but accepted as legal precedent.

Limitations on Free Speech

While the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws to stifle free speech, court precedent has upheld the placement of certain limitations on modes of free speech. These exceptions to the First Amendment underscore the interpretative nature of this fundamental right, as well as the impetus to use limitations and modes of censorship for the declared purpose of protecting public safety. Wikipedia notes that “Numerous holdings of [the Supreme] Court attest to the fact that the First Amendment does not literally mean that we ‘are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship.’”

The most consequential legal challenges surrounding freedom of speech do not question the basic premise of this freedom, but have instead centered on disputes around what should or should not be considered restricted speech.

• Inciting a Riot: The most famously-cited example of restricted speech comes from the 1919 case of Schenck v. United States, in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. analogized that the First Amendment does not make lawful the act of “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” This assessment informed a 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio that forms of speech may be restricted if it may be proven that this speech is directed toward, or likely to incite, a riot.
• The Fighting Words Doctrine: In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), the court found that “Under New Hampshire’s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address ‘any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name.’” Case law has repeatedly confirmed this basic doctrine while substantially narrowing the definition of fighting words to the extent that a wide range of potentially offensive or hateful forms of speech remain protected as long as they are demonstrably public, and not personal, in the nature of their attack.
• Obscenity: Obscenity is perhaps the most debated area of free speech in the public forum. Obscenity is, by admission of the courts themselves, a difficult quality to define. However, precedent finds that forms of speech and expression which can be identified as obscene are not protected by the First Amendment, According to Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), there is no protection for speech or expression which is “utterly without redeeming social importance,” and that, to “an average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.” In the most famous affirmation of Roth v. U.S., Justice Potter Stewart noted in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), that “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... [b]ut I know it when I see it.” This highly subjective standard opens the floor for ongoing legal challenge and discourse over what is defined as obscene.
• Defamation: Defamation is a form of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment. Statements in public spaces or in print (and increasingly, on social media) may not be slanderous or libelous. However, the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) found that there should be exceptions to the reach of defamation claims for those who are American public officials. The findings of this case denote that a statement must be proven to have been made with “actual malice”, meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true. In 1967, the case of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts extended that exception to all “public figures.”

Censorship in Media

In addition to the judicial limitations placed on First Amendment protections, there are ways that the U.S. government may place limits on the expression of free speech. These limits are referred to as censorship. Censorship is a function-typically performed by a government agency or an industry watchdog group-of identifying, preventing, and/or altering the scheduling or content contained in print or broadcast media. The stated goal of censorship is to prevent the public display of obscene material, or to prevent the exposure of indecent material to select audiences such as minors.

The standards around censorship have fluctuated over time, as has the level of strictness in the enforcement of these changing standards. The following are some prominent examples of how censorship occurs in various media sectors:

• The Hays Code: The Production Code-also called the Hays Code after the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) at the time-was a set of rules governing content in cinema. Adopted in 1930, and enforced with increasing strictness through the 1930s, the Hays Code determined “what was acceptable and what was unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the United States.” Filmmakers were required to meet the rigid standards set by the Production Code Association (PCA), which had a profound impact on film production by restricting sexual content, edgy language, and even political ideas. Though the PCA was not a government agency, Hollywood studios vested the PCA with its authority in order to be insulated from the threat of government fines and censorship. Increasing resistance and changing social mores led to the replacement of the Production Code, in 1968, with the MPAA film rating system that we know today. Rather than restricting content, this structure provides age advisories for certain content.
• Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC): Popular music has also been a source for debate over censorship. In 1985, a bipartisan group of women who were married to prominent Washington figures formed the PMRC with the mission of “increasing parental control over the access of children to music deemed to have violent, drug-related or sexual themes via labeling albums with Parental Advisory stickers.” Identifying objectionable content in music by artists like Prince, Def Leppard, and Cyndi Lauper, the PMRC pressured record companies and broadcast outlets to disassociate with offensive artists and content. Their efforts culminated in a Senate hearing, where musicians Frank Zappa, Dee Snyder, and John Denver spoke on behalf of the music industry’s First Amendment rights. The outcome of these hearings was the industry-wide adoption of Parental Advisory stickers, warning consumers of the potentially explicit, sexual, or violent content within certain music releases. Major retailers like Wal-Mart adopted a policy thereafter of refusing to sell releases bearing this sticker, such that the PMRC’s efforts would have a direct economic impact on many artists.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Unlike the Production Code Association and the Parents Music Resource Center, the FCC is a government agency with the power to issue fines and other penalties for violations of its standards. Though the FCC is tasked with the duty of censorship in broadcast media, it also expresses its duty to the First Amendment while outlining the judicial precedent justifying certain limitations on this Constitutional right.

Political Correctness and Cancel Culture

The First Amendment refers exclusively to the role of Congress where free speech is concerned. However, the present-day debate about freedom of speech is a bit more complex. Technically, the First Amendment protects a political figure’s right to express an unpopular opinion in a public forum, a celebrity’s right to say something offensive, or a journalist’s right to pen a racially insensitive blog post. Inherent to the First Amendment is the premise that the U.S. government may not create laws infringing on these rights.

However, this premise does not give the speaker immunity to the consequences of their speech. Unpopular speech may not incur government intervention, but it may provoke a response in the public space. Today, that public space includes the sprawling world of the internet, and by extension, social media. Online forums give every individual a public forum for free speech, but they also give broad cross-sections of the public an extremely powerful set of instruments for responding to unpopular speech.

The internet plays host to a perpetual tug of war between these two interests, and conflicts often produce real-world consequences:

• On one side of this divide are those who argue that controversial, offensive, and potentially hateful ideas should be met with debate, academic inquiry, and intellectual rigor.
• On the other side of this divide are those who view certain forms of speech as inherently destructive, and who therefore employ various forms of in-person and online activism to silence and punish offending speakers as a means of preventing the proliferation of potentially dangerous or injurious speech.

Many staunch First Amendment advocates argue that silencing offending ideas is contrary both to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and to the aims of honest academic inquiry. Some argue that a form of extreme “political correctness”-the policing of thoughts, ideas, and speech through public and social pressure-is counter-democratic. Those who hold this view accuse activists of using “cancel culture”-public, online campaigns aimed at shaming offending speakers and having them stripped of status, employment, and public speaking platforms. Numerous journalists, comedians, and university professors who are accused of offending speech have been subjected to this form of cultural “cancellation.”

Activists who undertake these public campaigns argue that their methods are not meant to restrict free speech, but to bring negative attention to those who use their freedom of expression for hateful, dangerous, or destructive purposes. The aim of “cancellation”, its advocates would argue, is to demand greater accountability from individuals who use public platforms to discriminate or otherwise exclude marginalized groups, as well as the organizations that provide such speakers with those platforms.

Using our own backstage Ranking Analytics tools, we’ve compiled a list of the most influential figures concerning the issue of free speech in the U.S. between 1900 and 2020. This list is vetted to exclude political heads of state. The remaining figures are a combination of free speech activists, Supreme Court Justices who have made consequential rulings on the matter, and authors or thinkers who have produced content challenging limitations on free speech.

Using our own backstage Ranking Analytics tools, we’ve compiled a list of the most influential books on the topic of free speech in the U.S. between 1900 and 2020. This list is vetted to exclude religious scriptures, and is largely comprised of both texts about the topics of free speech and censorship, and books whose content has ignited debate over free speech and censorship.

The Current Controversy

This controversy is unique in that few participants in the debate would characterize themselves as opponents of free speech:

• Those rendering judicial rulings placing limitations on First Amendment protections would argue that they do so for reasons of public safety.
• Those performing in an official capacity as government-sponsored censors would argue that they are responsible for protecting the public from unwanted exposure to indecency and obscenity.
• Those engaging in social activism aimed at hateful speech would argue that they are working to make public speech less dangerous and more inclusive.

Those who perform these functions argue that such limitations are critical to the preservation of the First Amendment. And yet, in each case, there are also many First Amendment advocates who argue that our protections extend beyond these attempts at limitation.

All of this underscores the complexity surrounding the current controversy. Most of the influencers identified here-with just a few exceptions-would characterize themselves as advocates for free speech. Therefore, this is not merely a dispute between the supporters and opponents of censorship. Instead, there is a far more nuanced conversation here about what constitutes protected speech, and how different figures, both past and present, have either exercised their rights, protected the rights of others, or advocated for limitations of free speech.

A Quick Overview of Our Methods

Our goal in presenting subjects that generate controversy is to provide you with a sense of some of the figures both past and present who have driven debate, produced recognized works of research, literature or art, proliferated their ideas widely, or who are identified directly and publicly with some aspect of this debate. By identifying the researchers, activists, journalists, educators, academics, and other individuals connected with this debate-and by taking a closer look at their work and contributions-we can get a clear but nuanced look at the subject matter. Rather than framing the issue as one side versus the other, we bring various dimensions of the issue into discussion with one another. This will likely include dimensions of the debate that resonate with you, some dimensions that you find repulsive, and some dimensions that might simply reveal a perspective you hadn’t previously considered.

For a look at how we handle the risk of spotlighting a potentially repulsive influencer, check out Influence and Infamy: The Case of Osama bin Laden.

Our InfluenceRanking engine gives us the power to scan the academic and public landscape surrounding the free speech issue using key terminology to identify consequential influencers. As with any topic that generates public debate and disagreement, this is a subject of great depth and breadth. We do not claim to probe either the bottom of this depth or the borders of this breadth. Instead, we offer you one way to enter into this debate, to identify key players, and through their contributions to the debate, to develop a fuller understanding of the issue and perhaps even a better sense of where you stand.

For a closer look at how our InfluenceRankings work, check out our methodology.

Otherwise, read on for a look at influencers associated with an array of key terms.

Key Terms

• Anti-Censorship
• First Amendment Advocates
• First Amendment Rights
• Free Speech
• Freedom of Speech
• Obscenity Law
• Film Censors
• Political Correctness
• Cancel Culture

Anti-Censorship

Individuals dedicated to anti-censorship are figures who have used activism, literature, journalism, and other public platforms to resist forms of government censorship, to support the legal and technical efforts of those impacted by what they view as unjust government censorship, and to help marginalized individuals and groups achieve equal opportunities for freedom of expression.

Influencers:

First Amendment Advocates

First Amendment advocates are those who undertake efforts through journalism, activism, and legal advocacy to advance free speech rights for individuals impacted by censorship or government-sponsored silencing.

Influencers:

First Amendment Rights

The various judicial rulings surrounding the First Amendment have helped to define the Constitutionally-protected rights of Americans and the limitations on those rights. Civil rights attorneys and activists have had a particularly profound influence in this area, helping to produce legal decisions that have at once expanded and more clearly defined these rights.

Influencers:

Free Speech

Referring to the exercise of the First Amendment, free speech has frequently been challenged and tested, particularly when it runs contrary to mainstream views of decency. For this reason, many prominent disputes over free speech have involved representatives of the adult film industry, the artistic avant garde, or advocates of religious liberties.

Influencers:

Freedom of Speech

The phrase “freedom of speech” carries a Constitutional overtone, and implies the shared understanding that this is an inalienable right protected by the First Amendment. Those affiliated with the phrase are often political science scholars, legal scholars, and civil rights attorneys who have helped to more explicitly define what the First Amendment intends through this protection.

Influencers:

Obscenity Law/Film Censor

Though the key term search yielded zero influencers who were identified as “pro-censorship,” the terms “obscenity law” and “film censor” yielded some examples of those who, through their official capacities in law enforcement or public administration, placed limitations upon the conditions of free speech.

Influencers:

Political Correctness/Cancel Culture

These phrases are often wielded satirically or derisively to characterize those who would place limitations on free speech through forms of grassroots activism aimed at shaming or punishing those they view as being guilty of offensive, hateful, or marginalizing speech. These terms did not yield evidence of influencers who are opposed to free speech, but instead, yielded a group of influencers who tend to invoke controversy through their exercise of free speech, and who are derisive of these forms of activism.

Influencers:

Influential Organizations Involved in the Censorship and Freedom of Speech Controversy

If you would like to study this topic in more depth, check out these key organizations...

Censors

• Federal Communications Commission
• Parents Music Resource Center
• The Motion Picture Association (MPA)

Free Speech Advocates

• American Civil Liberties Union
• First Amendment Coalition
• National Coalition Against Censorship

Interested in building toward a career on the front lines of the Censorship and Freedom of Speech? As you can see, there are many different avenues into this far-reaching issue. Use our Custom College Ranking to find:

• The Most Influential Law Degrees
• The Most Influential Communications Degrees
• The Most Influential Political Science Degrees

Interested in diving into another one of our controversial topics? Check out The 30 Most Controversial Topics Today!